5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Maintenance inhaler therapy preferences of patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a discrete choice experiment

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A variety of maintenance inhaler therapies are available to treat asthma and COPD. Patient-centric treatment choices require understanding patient preferences for the alternative therapies.

          Methods

          A self-completed web-based discrete choice experiment was conducted to elicit patient preferences for inhaler device and medication attributes. Selection of attributes was informed by patient focus groups and literature review.

          Results

          The discrete choice experiment was completed by 810 patients with asthma and 1147 patients with COPD. Patients with asthma most valued decreasing the onset of action from 30 to 5 min, followed by reducing yearly exacerbations from 3 to 1. Patients with COPD most and equally valued decreasing the onset of action from 30 to 5 min and reducing yearly exacerbations from 3 to 1. Both patients with asthma and patients with COPD were willing to accept an additional exacerbation in exchange for a 15 min decrease in onset of action and a longer onset of action in exchange for a lower risk of adverse effects from inhaled corticosteroids. Patients with asthma and COPD valued once-daily over twice-daily dosing, pressurised inhalers over dry powder inhalers and non-capsule priming over single-use capsules, although these attributes were not valued as highly as faster onset of action or reduced exacerbations.

          Conclusions

          The most important maintenance inhaler attributes for patients with asthma and COPD were fast onset of symptom relief and a lower rate of exacerbations. Concerns about safety of inhaled corticosteroids and device convenience also affected patient preferences but were less important.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

          No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy. Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?" were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy. Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples

            Numeracy, how facile people are with basic probability and mathematical concepts, is associated with how people perceive health risks. Performance on simple numeracy problems has been poor among populations with little as well as more formal education. Here, we examine how highly educated participants performed on a general and an expanded numeracy scale. The latter was designed within the context of health risks.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?

              Investigation of the 'rationality' of responses to discrete choice experiments (DCEs) has been a theme of research in health economics. Responses have been deleted from DCEs where they have been deemed by researchers to (a) be 'irrational', defined by such studies as failing tests for non-satiation, or (b) represent lexicographic preferences. This paper outlines a number of reasons why deleting responses from DCEs may be inappropriate after first reviewing the theory underpinning rationality, highlighting that the importance placed on rationality depends on the approach to consumer theory to which one ascribes. The aim of this paper is not to suggest that all preferences elicited via DCEs are rational. Instead, it is to suggest a number of reasons why it may not be the case that all preferences labelled as 'irrational' are indeed so. Hence, deleting responses may result in the removal of valid preferences; induce sample selection bias; and reduce the statistical efficiency and power of the estimated choice models. Further, evidence suggests random utility theory may be able to cope with such preferences. Finally, we discuss a number of implications for the design, implementation and interpretation of DCEs and recommend caution regarding the deletion of preferences from stated preference experiments. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Thorax
                Thorax
                thoraxjnl
                thorax
                Thorax
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0040-6376
                1468-3296
                September 2020
                6 July 2020
                : 75
                : 9
                : 735-743
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentPatient-Centered Research , Evidera , London, UK
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Epidemiology , University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen , Groningen, The Netherlands
                [3 ] departmentSection of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine , Baylor College of Medicine , Houston, Texas, USA
                [4 ] departmentDivision of Pulmonary Medicine, Weill-Cornell Medical Center , Cornell University , New York City, New York, USA
                [5 ] AstraZeneca , Wilmington, Delaware, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Tommi Tervonen, Patient-Centered Research, Evidera, London W6 8BJ, UK; tommi.tervonen@ 123456evidera.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7303-500X
                Article
                thoraxjnl-2019-213974
                10.1136/thoraxjnl-2019-213974
                7476258
                32631932
                9ac93fed-4bc8-49b8-b8f6-4d7ca42511e6
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 15 August 2019
                : 17 April 2020
                : 07 May 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004325, AstraZeneca;
                Categories
                Asthma
                1506
                2313
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Surgery
                asthma,copd exacerbations,inhaler devices
                Surgery
                asthma, copd exacerbations, inhaler devices

                Comments

                Comment on this article